read-file

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Read' without explaining side effects (e.g., read-only), error behavior, permission requirements, or how encoding affects the response. The schema hints at target and encoding, but the description itself is silent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief given the rich input schema and the presence of an output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description plus schema define the required parameters and target, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, there is no mention of edge cases like file-not-found, permission issues, or encoding's practical effect on the response, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 75%, and the schema already documents name, path, and target. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Encoding lacks an explanation, but its enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, so the schema carries the load adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Read a file from a machine') with a clear verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like write-file and machine-logs, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast with related tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The description only says what the tool does, not when to prefer it over run-command, get-machine, or machine-logs. There is no guidance on selecting local vs cloud target or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.